Earthquake risk screening Decision Framework
Decision question
Evidence matrix
- AFAD site hazard
- building age/system
- alterations
- technical reports
- Riskli Yapı records
Pass conditions
For the decision framework, test the strongest claim first. If alterations conflicts with technical reports, preserve both pieces of evidence and identify the reason for the conflict before treating the file as complete.
Conditional approval
Stop conditions
Topic-specific application: AFAD’s Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map has been in force since 1 January 2019 and expresses hazard by location coordinates; it is a hazard tool, not a certificate that a specific building is earthquake-resistant. Start with AFAD site hazard and building age/system, and tie both to the exact property, party and transaction date. Finish with one operational status: PASS, CONDITIONAL or STOP. Record source, date, property identifiers, open exception, responsible person and next action. This turns the page into transaction evidence rather than boilerplate.
Transaction example
Checklist before closure
- AFAD site hazard
- building age/system
- alterations
- technical reports
- Riskli Yapı records
Decision question
Trade-off
Evidence weighting
Test risk independently before using decision as supporting evidence. This prevents a secondary document from validating an incorrect primary assumption.
Conditional path
Final rationale
Topic-specific application: AFAD’s Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map has been in force since 1 January 2019 and expresses hazard by location coordinates; it is a hazard tool, not a certificate that a specific building is earthquake-resistant. Start with AFAD site hazard and building age/system, and tie both to the exact property, party and transaction date. The closeout record should contain a reproducible answer, the source date, the identifiers reviewed, the reviewer and a future refresh trigger. A future buyer should be able to understand the conclusion without relying on memory.
No-go trigger
Earthquake risk screening — Decision rule
Source-grounded facts
How to use these facts
Primary sources
- AFAD
- AFAD
- AFAD
What the record proves
Classify the decision as preliminary information with no obvious alert but not a substitute for engineering review; indicators requiring specialist assessment; or an existing official/technical finding requiring legal and engineering resolution before purchase. Avoid unsupported safe/unsafe labels.
Required reconciliation
Limits and exceptions
Decision consequence
2026 update
FAQ
Can earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk affect financing or valuation?
AFAD’s current hazard map was published on 18 March 2018 and entered into force on 1 January 2019. AFAD explicitly says it is a hazard map, not a building-risk map; the interactive map also excludes local-site effects such as liquefaction, amplification and differential settlement. Classify the decision as preliminary information with no obvious alert but not a substitute for engineering review; indicators requiring specialist assessment; or an existing official/technical finding requiring legal and engineering resolution before purchase. Avoid unsupported safe/unsafe labels.
What will a bank or valuer usually need to reconcile — earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
What unresolved issue can delay financing — earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
Primary sources
Official source: AFAD Hazard Map
Verified information for Earthquake risk screening
compare documentary status with the physical, payment or operational reality relevant to the topic and write down every unexplained difference before commitment.
convert each unresolved difference into a named condition: evidence required, person responsible, deadline and the consequence if the condition is not satisfied.